Speeding ticket in Cambridge ON
07-27-2006, 10:17 AM
#31
Nordschleife Master
Originally Posted by Rally Guy
Nah - speed cameras are just the ultimate expression of "tax grab". It's automated and doesn't tie a punishment directly to the "crime". You just get a "bill" in the mail. It' like a tax for traveling at the prevailing speed. Just as dumb.
Frankly - if it weren't for the 1000's extra in insurance - I wouldn't mind paying 100's in speeding tickets. It's the three years of follow on cost that really kills. Added of course to the fact that usually - the dirver is just complying with the demos (prevailing rate of speed of all other cars). And in a democracy - ain't that the point??
RK
Frankly - if it weren't for the 1000's extra in insurance - I wouldn't mind paying 100's in speeding tickets. It's the three years of follow on cost that really kills. Added of course to the fact that usually - the dirver is just complying with the demos (prevailing rate of speed of all other cars). And in a democracy - ain't that the point??
RK
07-27-2006, 10:28 AM
#32
Three Wheelin'
Oh - I see.
Interesting. I think human nature is that people would STILL speed up - creating a hugely dangerous accordian effect (with lots of nasty rear end collisions). UNLESS the camera density was so high that you never could speed up - but the infrastrucutre cost would be huge. And to what benefit? Everyone going 100kms/hr??? You would STILL have bad lane changes, no signalling, tailgating, tired transport drivers, poor condition cars, DUI - all the REALLY dangerous behaviour that causes the vast majority of accididents.
Futher, a deeper financial analysis of the big picture might very well show that the economic impact of all those hours wasted by people diving 20-30% slower on major highways would dramtically outweigh any "safety" benefit from the slower speeds. Not sure about this - but I'd suspect it. (I'm citing the impact that's put forward when there's a major accident and hours are lost to a traffic jam, this would be less - but maybe not by much because it would be constant and widespread)
RK
(edit)...
To whit...
The NSW Roads Minister, Carl Scully, has turned his sights to speed cameras as a cure-all. NSW already has 110 fixed speed cameras, which rake in more than $40 million a year. Now Scully wants 20 per cent more, claiming research by ARRB Transport Research proves conclusively they save lives.
But in an article in this month's Policy magazine (www.cis.org.au), a British sociologist, Alan Buckingham, says the opposite, citing research which shows speed cameras do nothing to reduce accidents, and may cause them. His research predictably caused howls of outrage yesterday, with the RTA describing it as "seriously flawed" and saying road deaths had been reduced significantly at 28 speed camera sites.
But Buckingham says governments in Britain and NSW lump together accidents and label them "speed-related". The RTA says 30 per cent of fatal accidents involve speed. Yet Buckingham found they had included in the definition such causes as "trucks jack-knifing", "fatigue" and alcohol". As he points out, any accident can be labelled speed-related since "objects cannot collide if they are not moving".
It is "excessive speed for the conditions" which Buckingham says is dangerous. He says it is those drivers who travel at well above or well below the limit who are dangerous. The safest drivers are those who travel at the 85th percentile of the traffic's prevailing speed on any given road, which may be over the speed limit. He concludes speed cameras therefore are catching the safest drivers but not the most dangerous slowpokes.
In Canada, the Government of British Columbia scrapped speed cameras when they found they had had "no discernible impact on speed or the fatal accident rate".
The data for the efficacy of speed cameras in NSW is not encouraging. Fatal crashes in NSW halved between 1980 and 1991, which is when speed cameras were introduced, writes Buckingham. "Since then, the decline has faltered with a drop of just 3 per cent since 1993, despite the implementation of double demerit points in 1997 and fixed speed cameras in 1999." The double-demerit scheme which operates over Christmas and other holiday periods is shown by Buckingham to have had "no effect" on road fatalities. Speed cameras may even cause accidents because journey times are increased, causing drivers to become frustrated; drivers may divert to less safe routes to avoid cameras; and cameras can distract driver attention, and cause sudden braking.
The danger of increased reliance by government on speed cameras, says Buckingham, is that "by regularly convicting large numbers of law-abiding people [and] alienating those on whose goodwill the police often rely ... respect for the law will lessen."
Speed cameras also let governments off the hook on safety. They can blame motorists for driving too fast instead of building proper dual carriageways that allow margin for inevitable human error. People will always make mistakes but a moment's inattention or miscalculation shouldn't be fatal.
From: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...917478103.html
Interesting. I think human nature is that people would STILL speed up - creating a hugely dangerous accordian effect (with lots of nasty rear end collisions). UNLESS the camera density was so high that you never could speed up - but the infrastrucutre cost would be huge. And to what benefit? Everyone going 100kms/hr??? You would STILL have bad lane changes, no signalling, tailgating, tired transport drivers, poor condition cars, DUI - all the REALLY dangerous behaviour that causes the vast majority of accididents.
Futher, a deeper financial analysis of the big picture might very well show that the economic impact of all those hours wasted by people diving 20-30% slower on major highways would dramtically outweigh any "safety" benefit from the slower speeds. Not sure about this - but I'd suspect it. (I'm citing the impact that's put forward when there's a major accident and hours are lost to a traffic jam, this would be less - but maybe not by much because it would be constant and widespread)
RK
(edit)...
To whit...
The NSW Roads Minister, Carl Scully, has turned his sights to speed cameras as a cure-all. NSW already has 110 fixed speed cameras, which rake in more than $40 million a year. Now Scully wants 20 per cent more, claiming research by ARRB Transport Research proves conclusively they save lives.
But in an article in this month's Policy magazine (www.cis.org.au), a British sociologist, Alan Buckingham, says the opposite, citing research which shows speed cameras do nothing to reduce accidents, and may cause them. His research predictably caused howls of outrage yesterday, with the RTA describing it as "seriously flawed" and saying road deaths had been reduced significantly at 28 speed camera sites.
But Buckingham says governments in Britain and NSW lump together accidents and label them "speed-related". The RTA says 30 per cent of fatal accidents involve speed. Yet Buckingham found they had included in the definition such causes as "trucks jack-knifing", "fatigue" and alcohol". As he points out, any accident can be labelled speed-related since "objects cannot collide if they are not moving".
It is "excessive speed for the conditions" which Buckingham says is dangerous. He says it is those drivers who travel at well above or well below the limit who are dangerous. The safest drivers are those who travel at the 85th percentile of the traffic's prevailing speed on any given road, which may be over the speed limit. He concludes speed cameras therefore are catching the safest drivers but not the most dangerous slowpokes.
In Canada, the Government of British Columbia scrapped speed cameras when they found they had had "no discernible impact on speed or the fatal accident rate".
The data for the efficacy of speed cameras in NSW is not encouraging. Fatal crashes in NSW halved between 1980 and 1991, which is when speed cameras were introduced, writes Buckingham. "Since then, the decline has faltered with a drop of just 3 per cent since 1993, despite the implementation of double demerit points in 1997 and fixed speed cameras in 1999." The double-demerit scheme which operates over Christmas and other holiday periods is shown by Buckingham to have had "no effect" on road fatalities. Speed cameras may even cause accidents because journey times are increased, causing drivers to become frustrated; drivers may divert to less safe routes to avoid cameras; and cameras can distract driver attention, and cause sudden braking.
The danger of increased reliance by government on speed cameras, says Buckingham, is that "by regularly convicting large numbers of law-abiding people [and] alienating those on whose goodwill the police often rely ... respect for the law will lessen."
Speed cameras also let governments off the hook on safety. They can blame motorists for driving too fast instead of building proper dual carriageways that allow margin for inevitable human error. People will always make mistakes but a moment's inattention or miscalculation shouldn't be fatal.
From: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/...917478103.html
07-27-2006, 10:48 AM
#33
Three Wheelin'
Okay - I just gotta get back to work - but this really is one of my pet peeves.
Brad - hope you read this site...
http://sense.bc.ca/research.htm
RK
PS - I had one fact wrong - it's the 85th percentile - not 80.
Brad - hope you read this site...
http://sense.bc.ca/research.htm
RK
PS - I had one fact wrong - it's the 85th percentile - not 80.
07-27-2006, 01:01 PM
#34
Nordschleife Master
I think if everyone were forced to drive 100 km and hour, the speed limit would be increased so fast your head would spin. 100 is so incredible slow no one not even our fat assed politicians would stand for it.
As it is right now everyone speeds and takes there chances. It's a numbers game and eventually you will get caught but it is worth taking the chance and paying for the ticket to get to your destination early.
It's just to bad that the insurance companies can bump up your rate after a ticket, when we all know that the whole situation is not right.
As it is right now everyone speeds and takes there chances. It's a numbers game and eventually you will get caught but it is worth taking the chance and paying for the ticket to get to your destination early.
It's just to bad that the insurance companies can bump up your rate after a ticket, when we all know that the whole situation is not right.
07-27-2006, 02:35 PM
#36
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by jumper5836
As it is right now everyone speeds and takes there chances..
So the quote SHOULD be (in a just society where insurance companies with a profit motive don't rule) would be, "Everyone travels at the right speed for conditions, at the same speed as everyone else - and our insurance rates go down becuase there are fewer accidents."
Hmmm, Nirvana!
The solution? Start an insurance company! (At least that way - we'll be making a dime or two off the carnage)
RK
07-27-2006, 06:00 PM
#37
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: SW Ontario canada
Posts: 882
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In my area, all the "King's Highways have been downloaded to the county, so town council sets the limits,usually due to complaints from residents, and sometimes the engineer recalculates as rural houses proliferate and re-calculates the limit based on driveways per Km or somesuch.
Yes, I tink speed limits are a cash grab, and suggest that if government was serious about speeding, they would make it like DUI--get two and you lose your licence for a period of time. Ppl couldn't afford not to speed. But, the most insideous part of this is the insurance end, I agree.
Rally guy: What in heaven's name did you do to earn the GPS thing? THAT must be a story!
Yes, I tink speed limits are a cash grab, and suggest that if government was serious about speeding, they would make it like DUI--get two and you lose your licence for a period of time. Ppl couldn't afford not to speed. But, the most insideous part of this is the insurance end, I agree.
Rally guy: What in heaven's name did you do to earn the GPS thing? THAT must be a story!
07-28-2006, 12:24 AM
#38
Team Owner
I got a ticket last year on hwy 6 and when I talked to the prosecutor he flat out told me it was a cash grab and siad it was in all the papers. R=The city of Hamilton was not giving any money to the police cheif so in lieu the police cheif wated 50,000 tickets writing up. Apparently it was in all the papers and people should be aware by now that the cities need the money with the changes to the downloading of funds from the feds to the province to the municipalities..
